tv [untitled] August 16, 2011 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT
question. it is a lot of money. i think some of the tasks, particularly the risk and financial analysis could be cut down. there are people we have available at the sfpuc internally and through finance that might be able to do some of that work. i am here before you to ask for $100,000 to start the rfp process to leasfor what we needt couple of years to clear in city renewables. supervisor mirkarimi: i am definitely open to the $100,000 portion of it. i would never agree to the $390,000. absolutely not. it looks like it is trying to
manufacture work in search of trying to deplete the remaining amount of the funds that exist. i am sorry. that is just wrong. i oversaw a number of those reports in the past. sometimes i was pretty underwhelmed by the analysis provided at a high cost with regard to the fact there was not the level of depth that i was looking for. i want to make sure this is teased in such a way that we're not going to repeat that same situation. i kept asking for more work. with that came the price tag of more money being requested. i do not want to see that happen. i do not want there to be this blind faith of giving x amount
of dollars for a report that we are unsatisfied with. that would then require more money. i think everybody sort of knows each other now with local power. there needs to be a greater structured protocol so that the work product stands up to the cost. commissioner miller: yes, we have worked with local power before. we work with them through task order. we would not change that. this action before you is to authorize the entering into of a contract. i would not task that work until we have a specific task. the first task i have listed. the rfp has been provided.
we would have them provide that for comment. we would see that work. i say this with the caveat that i have received communications from the advocates and consultants that the entire region that if the $390,000 is not funded, they do not want to do any work at all. supervisor mirkarimi: let's call the elephant in the room. i am also an advocate. this is where i come from in this regard. whatever the relationship is with the advocates and consultant is an intimate relationship. it is one that is often wielded -- has wielded leverage on the spotty thinking it has to be an all or nothing relationship between a consultant and this body, too. i do not think that is clear or accurate.
at some point, we have to stand up and say that on work product itself, at a cost, we want to make sure we're getting the best we can for the dollar we're spending. i think that level of service needs to be maintained. the quality control needs to be insisted upon. >> i want to put some context to this. let me say this. the way i have approached the term sheet and build our and the work that needs to be done around both is that i do believe it is important for us to proceed and move forward with the build out on a parallel track. that said, i am going to be the last person to approve any contract where you are talking about manufactured work. i have directed staff to come to us with a recommendation as to
what work needs to be done and objectively should be done so that we move on parallel tracks and move forward with a clear understanding that no money will be paid unless it is money for services needed and is done in a way that clearly outlines what the bill liberals -- what the undeliverab-- deliverables are. i do not think saying three of $9,000 or nothing is acceptable under any circumstances. we will pay what is needed. i do think it is important for us to make sure that we begin this process. there's also an element of frustration with the puc because this discussion of what the work should be has been ongoing for quite some time.
it has been weeks of discussion. we still have not finalized that scope. i think it is important for lafco to strike the right balance in san will only pay what is needed. at the same time, we need to make sure we take actions to move the process forward. this action does not guarantee the $100,000 will be spent. is simply authorizes the executive officer to finalize and enter into a contract that specifically provides for work that needs to be done for the bill out. that is all it does. it went beyond that, i would not be comfortable with it. that is why i am comfortable with that. commissioner pimental. commissioner pimental: is local power interested in a negotiation on their proposal? is it an all or nothing proposal? commissioner miller: i have
heard both depending on the level of frustration. sometimes people say things that they then retract. i also do not know the total answer to that question. i have received in writing and have heard from the advocates that it is an all or nothing issue. i have said that is not how is for us. i am willing to go forward with this particular piece of this. it remains all or nothing, i will not enter into the contract. that is not how we do business. we would be bidding for a contract of that size. we would never just into a full source contract with that amount of money. we would did it, a task it, and go with the lowest responsible bidder. i am comfortable with what i have recommended to you.
it is up to you whether you want to wait on that or not. i think there is work to be done. i would task it. we're not spending $100,000 in the next month. i would task id. we would have a report back. i do not know if the consultant will take the offer, to tell you the truth. we will see. supervisor campos: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: how is it that the quote here is literally the same amount that exists in the pot? commissioner miller: i think the consultant will tell you that it will actually cost them more. they want to keep the contract price where it was. i believe isthat is what the consultant will tell you. i know that is what the advocates will tell you. my scope is more limited than
what is before you, then what local power provided. supervisor mirkarimi: it is too bad nobody from local power is here. why are they not? commissioner miller: i invited representatives from local power to come. i think they feel they have representatives. supervisor mirkarimi: what does that mean exactly? commissioner miller: it is my understanding and i have been told that advocates worked on the scope of work with the consultants. is that not true? supervisor mirkarimi: let's only deal with the facts. they are not here. commissioner miller: i asked him to come. supervisor mirkarimi: this conversation feels all little incomplete without us being able to talk to the consultant himself. it would not be thorough for us
to move on this one piece of paper before us. i understand what you are asking in an incremental way that makes sense. i am bothered by what is being depicted that is all or nothing. if that is true, you lose me there. commissioner miller: i think that is true. you would lose me there. every week, we have had this communication. there is a good-faith effort to move it forward and say this is work that could be and should be done. in either disagreed to or not. supervisor campos: commissioner schmeltzer. commissioner schmeltzer: i have a related concern said. and aside from this. first, i am concerned that we do not have a more specific scope in front of us before we are being asked to approve it.
i am not sure i am concerned at local power is here or not given my experience of hearing them advocate for themselves. my other concern is the tone of this. it is as if we are negotiating with them so that they will allow us to pay them for the benefit that they will bestow upon us. it is almost as though they are saying they will be generous enough to take our money. i am not sure why we're trying so hard to find something for them to do. i feel like you and the puc are going out of your way to look for something to give them a contract for at this point. i am not hearing anything in this that i am convinced we need from them. if we're just looking for work to give to somebody, these are lean times.
there is not enough money for anything in government that we want to be able to do. there are things we need to be doing. we need to spend more time and need more staff for those. i am not hearing why this is so necessary. $100,000 is a substantial amount of money. i feel like we are being told we need to pay this money to them and are looking for some reason to do it. by understand you are not saying that. that is how it feels from here and from the proposal that local power wrote. i just do not appreciate it. beyond that, i have had my own concerns with the quality of their product in the past. supervisor campos: i think it is really important for me to respond to that. i do not know that anyone can
sit here and say that anyone is trying to make work. my role as the chair of this commission is to make sure that we move this project forward in a fiscally prudent way. i asked for a recommendation from staff as to what work needs to be done to make sure -- and to make sure it is done in a cost-effective way. the recommendation has come before me. it has been presented. that is why it is before this commission. if the commission feels it is not appropriate, that is fine. there is a difference of opinion. there is no effort here to simply give money away for the sake of giving money away. i would ask staff if they believe this is work that should be done and if the scope is appropriate given where we are in this process. commissioner miller: the tasks that i have outlined before you, yes. that is why the recommendation
is before you. task one, its portion of nine, and eight, as outlined in the proposal. >> i guess based on what i am reading in a staff report, i would want to know more. you did write something up and identify tasks. you also said the final scope of work may include general advice on how the dozen things -- half a dozen things listed. what we received from local power was extensive and detailed. it included a lot more. it also listed about 17 different people. i think i would want to know more about what we are proposing to use them for and what we would get for potentially up to $100,000. supervisor campos: supervisor
mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am willing to go with a staff recommendation and echo chair ccampos in this case. i thought we were going with a small scope that calls out the most pressing need. in the past, i have seen some useful analysis provided by local power. at other times, i have asked for greater followup when i thought we received was not satisfactory. it has been sort of an up and down. in this case if there can be a real structured monitoring of the quality of the work, i am ok to give it that increment. what kind of deflates the
discussion is if you have to spend $390,000. i am hoping it is not all or nothing. that subverts this discussion. i do not know what is real, or our retre -- or arbitrary. if you want to go with what staff recommended, you have my support for that. supervisor campos: commissioner pimental. commissioner pimental: if the proposal is rejected, who would do the existing tasks? local powers as all or nothing. who would complete the existing tasks that were proposed to go to local power? commissioner miller: i think the plan is that he would issue another rf or use other
consultants we have available to potentially perform the. this is an sfpuc contract, so i am not sure you have anyone else other than local power on contract for that work. i think they would have to, sfpuc would have to issue an rfp. supervisor campos: commissioner schmeltzer. commissioner schmeltzer: if this contract does not go forward and if local power is not engaged to do this work, how does that affect your program? that is assuming we get a term sheet and place in the program is meeting the other time scheduled goals.
>> mike campbell with the sfpuc. thank you for that question. in our discussions with the advocate and local power, we have been reviewing the work skill. one of the issues is that there is a difference of opinion in terms of what is necessary. my professional opinion is that a lot of the scope in there is not necessary for moving our program forward and would import -- divert important dollars away from what we need to get launched. we have proposed several works groups involved in helping write rfp's. those have been rejected. commissioner schmeltzer: i am talking about staff's proposed scope. >> the scope of work we have generally plant that is not written down? commissioner schmeltzer: i am
referring to the memo we were provided that says local power would include the following services for $100,000. identify contractual terms, allocate responsibilities. >this is in a memo dated today from our executive officer. >> i have that in front of me. in terms of activities related to development of renewables in terms of issuing rfp's, many of the activities we think we can handle within the staff and the health of the help of lafco staff. i do not see an issue in terms of getting rfp's out the door and seeking out new renewable resources. we are interested in working with the advocates to see if we can get the benefit of local
power to assist us with that. so far, we have been unsuccessful in finding a mutually agreeable scope. commissioner schmeltzer: if the money set aside is not extended, what would it be used for? >> it could be used for a variety of things. it could be earmarked for the marketing and outreach that will be so important for the data we will face with pg&e as well as spending some of the initial startup costs. we talked about some of the appropriations that would be necessary. any dollar saved could help to avoid future appropriations. supervisor campos: if we were to take action on this, for this item to pass, we would need three votes. >> yes, you would need three votes. that would be the public member
voting. supervisor campos: it does not seem like we're going to get there. maybe the thing to do is to continue this item. >> i think my motion to continue is still unseconded. supervisor mirkarimi: i was willing to split it with regard to staff recommendation on moving forward with the first increment. hearing that there is not sufficient support for that, i will leave it up to the will of the body. supervisor campos: my preference would be to move forward with this. i also understand there are concerns. i want to make sure those concerns are addressed. why don't we take out without objection? before we do that, i want to give the advocates an opportunity for public comment.
>> when this does come back, i would like some more detail if we go in that direction. supervisor campos: we have not taken action yet. we want to make sure we have public comment before we take action. go ahead. >> i am the coordinator of the local clean energy alliance. i represent one of the organizations involved in the negotiations and discussions that have taken place. we've heard today is not at all represent the reality we have experienced. i want to try to express that. the question is about what the program will look like. it has been clear from the beginning that the cca program in san francisco without a strong local build up with resources developed in the city
region without those resources -- without those resources and assets, there is not a program the public to support. it is just buying energy on the open market with a renewable portfolios standard. this question is about economic development and jobs in san francisco because of a cca program and the possibility that provides going forward. that cannot be achieved without a plan for doing that. the plan for doing that cannot be achieved without a certain amount of research and work being done to understand the resources that currently exist and the resources that need to be developed, how they should be rolled out and play, how they should be packaged and put together, how they should be financed. we need to know what the plan is
going to be. having that kind of plan can influence how you do the market procurement. the market procurement can have real influence over the plan. all that has been talked about by the sfpuc is the market procurements peiece. the local bill that is the only reason for having the program in the first place. they would be fine to divert the $390,000 left in the budget towards the marketing plan being proposed in the term sheet. that is not what the communities idea of clean power is about. the scope of work we have got to develop is about being able to get a plan foer cleanpowersf that will have those benefits. that takes money and work to do it. there is no shortcut. [tone!] that is why we have been so
behind on the work for some time. the representations made about our relationship to local power or the making of work that is not needed and all that stuff, it just shows a strongly uninformed understanding of the realities of the situation. i am sorry that is the case. [tone!] supervisor campos: next speaker. >> i am with global exchange. we are in member of the local clean energy alliance. we very much did support this item moving forward. we appreciate lafco moving this process forward. this item is a portion of the scope of work. rather than in the and all or
nothing from , it is more a sequencing matter. this portion of $100,000 would be funding falls on the earlier portion of the scope of work that we've been looking for the sfpuc to fund. it is not all or nothing. it is just that a lot of the $100,000 portion of work would not be engaged and would not happen if the earlier portion of the analysis work that needs to be done -- that would need to happen first before this 100,000 zero should be appropriate to be engaged and spent out. we have been part of this negotiation. we do have a lot of eyes on this. there are a lot of people engaged right now that very much want this to succeed and are looking for this to be productive work.
it is critical work for the program to be successful. there will be a lot of eyes on the task sheet and deliverables. it is written into have monthly chickens to make sure the product that is useful is being delivered and that decisions can be made about the next steps with the product provided. it is a sequence. what you would be approving would only be used if sfpuc is moving forward on the first portion of the work. we really do look to the sfpuc to engage with us and find some tasks that will serve what they are working on and create an effective plan for the bill out of renewables. that is what we're hoping for. he would be helpful to see lafco stepping up for this
portion to show sfpuc that we're serious about helping to get the bill out plan and rfp to happen. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> and eric brooks representing san francisco green party and our city. i have a quick disclaimer. neither i nor any of the organizations i represent have received a penny and never will receive a penny from local power. there is no relationship like that. to get to some specifics about the work itself, just to put it in context the first part that june referred to that we need the sfpuc is largely a task of gathering
information, voluminous information about pg & e and sfpuc and its rate pairs, etc., so that it's a huge amount of information that has to be crunched and then more work needs to be done to scope out the entire -- they were talking about scoping out the entire city for a full buildout of renewable and hundreds of efficiencies in hundreds of mega watts. in sonoma county, just that beginning part of getting rate pair information and analyzing that data that component all in itself cost $300,000. and sonoma has a similar size rate base as san francisco does. so i know you got sticker shock on this but the reality is this is what it takes to have a plan on a buildout an entiit